The Big Sandy news. [volume] (Louisa, Ky.) 1885-1929, 1887-11-03


inc IN this court The fourteenth amendment
was equally foreign TO any right, privilege or
Immunity here claimed by the petitioners Ahv
record would show that the complaint was not
that the State had made or was enforcing Jaw
which deprived the petitioners OF any OF inc
privileges or immnnites guaranteed by mat
section. but that thoy wtYe deprived OF rights by
an erroneous construction Of the IN" places I,
npt,n II IL the tr.li court o. the State. Petl
TONERS idid not riaiin N the Supreme Couftof
the State that 81 i1ne!r act OF 1874 was re-
puguaat 10 INC cpnsutn4nn. treaties OF la~sot
The United STATES, nor that .he suthoriy o.
the couft was exercised under r. ous ifat l
inc aet was constitutional and valid, and the |
court exercised its power In violation o. the |
law. Petitioners were tried in the courts oil
the State under the laws of the state, ana lnas
constituted due process OF law. IL was nov
material that this or another court might nave
ruled differently under the law Due process
of law meant Flaw OF the land
ATTORNEYS General Hunt then turned his az
tention to the constitutional provision ina.
..no State shall deny 10 any person the equat
protection OF the laws, and reclteu lho
circumstances under which and the pnr-
poses for which II was adopted. iho
last section OF this amendment nc salu,
provides that Congress should have power
10 enforce by appropriate legislation inc
provisions OF this article" He would submit 70
the court that the equal protection oil the
laws and the privileges ana immunlties CON
| templated by this amendment were ony those
for whose enforcement Congress mad PROVIDED
by subsequent legislation, and, having acted,
\ Congress has exhausted the supleet uhth "
chooses TO again take 1t up.
Turning TO the composition OF the Jury IN the
trial court. the Acknowledgement said that he
| did not see how the personnel OF the luty
| which tried petitioners in this case could prop
i erly be submitted TO the court or considered Dy
| ii in the present proceeding This inquiry
must be made rs to the constitutlonality OF the
jury law OF the State OF Illinois, and not as TO
how a State eourt may have construed thatlaw.
| The record showed he believed that on the
challenge of one juror a suggestion was made
| by one OF tho counsel for the prison.
ers that there was provision In the
constitution OF Illinois, as well as In the
constitution Of the United states guar
nnteeing to every person trial by
an impartial jury The person at whose chal-
lenge that suggestion was made did not finally
sit in the Jury that tried the case. He would
submit that In order to give the parties a
standing in court, the suggestion or
object on must have been made with
regard TO Juror who actually tried the
case, or that by reason of the exhaustion OF the
peremptory challenge the petitioners we're
compelled TO accept an incompetent Juror, ana
were thereby irrepGrably damaged. The ques-
tion was never raised with regard to any Juror
who did actually sit in that case.
A colIoquy arose as to whether any constl--
tutional question was raised upon any member
of the jury accepted, impaneled ana sworn.
Mr. Hunt denied that such was the case, ana
the record was appealed to at the suggestion oil
Chief Justice Waite, us the opposing counsel
insisted there was such question. The CHIEF
Justice directed that all the parts of the record
relating to the question thus ra sed should be
printed and submitted to the court to-day.
Attorney General Hunt resumng said that
the Jury law of the State OF Illinois was not nj
tackled by counsel on the other side in the state
Supreme Court They stated expressly tread
ing from the proceedings) that I'VE have not
thought IL necessary TO attack the constitution
ality of the law because 1t may be given con
, struct!on which would make 1t unoblectiona
, ble."
1.-THE contention supposed, was" said the
Attorney General that Judge Gary had giver
to the law construction in violation OF INT
constitution. l believe 1t to be well set
tied and established that this court vii
, rot review the decision OF the Supreme
! Court of a State as to the construction
10 be gwen to its own constitution and
, its own laws The jury law of Illinois has beer
! the common law all over the United States
and always. The provisions OF the law OBJECT
! cd TO in this case have been in the statute-booi
4 Of the State for thirteen years. There are sui
4 stantialy The same laws in Arkansas, Colorado
and Nebraska, where they have been sustained
by the highest State courts
The Acknowledgement then called attention
q iorcIbly to the fact that recent changes In tn
4 jury laws OF the State all had for their purpos
:. and object the procurement OF better an
g more Intelligent class OF men
: Jurors. Is it possible that wheneve
! u law is enacted in any Stat
: which recognizes the changed coalition O
>, afIairs-a law which is intended to adapt Tn
!, Jury system to such changed conditions
= Federal question is raised: Then the convi'
g ton of any man in a State court raises Fec
- eral question, and under the unlimited PR
y visions OF the fourteenth amendment tn;
n question can be brought to this court for r,
~ view He hoped that the court would maturel
- consider the far-reaching consequences OF N
construct on which the petitioners desired
have gwen 10 the fourteenth amendment.
- !, AS to the alleged unreasonable search an
v SECURE 1t is said that after the prisoners M
20 been arrested their desks were broken open
re the police and papers and bombs, ETC.. wei
~ taken out without warrant The Attorne
~ General said he would like to know how crit
. innl's instruments of crime could legally
II, taken from him. He knew OF nc4process l
~ y, which II could DO done If they were his ow
!. II The question for the court, however, was N
~ How was possession OF these things obtained
40 but rather "What do they proven"
Mr. Hunt cited very recent decision OF
~ case coming from Illinois that was decidedly
70 the point Mr. Tucker had pressed with mu
70 ability the point that the State OF ii
ou nois had violated the sacred RICH
W. OF the accused in searching witho
T, warrants their desks and trunks, and us
A documents there found as evidence again
nu them on the trial. The Attorncy-General !
~ tnrted that in the case OF Frederick NJ. Il
~ the Supreme Court year or two ago {
" cided adversely on right far higher and mo
" sacred than that Of having ones desk pl
60 tected from violent search. In the Ker case,
~, nv was not u piece OF evidence, but II
nc the prisoner himself who was
OF legged 10 have been procured and broug
into court without the usual fori
iai of law, and the lower court was upheld by
ny Supreme Court OF the United States III taxi
~ the pos ton that SO long as the prisoner
'or within the Jurisdiction OF the court the col
o,i would not inquire how he came there,
zen The Acknowledgement then took up the CT
w OF the prisoners Feden md Spies, and 81
that he understoodit would be urged by cot
me sci on the other side that tn,
nu being foreigners Fielden an
nst glishman and Spies German-were y
'es tected by the treaties between the Uni
Wv States and their respective governments; u
SIN they should have immunity because The treat
iin provided that citizens of England and Germa
me lyng in the United States should have all
10 rights and privileges guaranteed by law to c
pe- zens of the United States at the time the tr
~ ~ ties were ratified
lhe The Chief Justice-In what respect is u $
vi that this violates the citizenship OF Great u
Sut ani
iee General Butler--They were TO have nll
'no privileges Of Americans at the date OF
on, treaties, and among those privilegeswe cont'
iou was trial by jury under the laws then in FOL
lne No laws could be passedto change their COZ
"i' ton under the organic lnw-the highest law
Acknowledgement Hunt replied that II
OIL werc so, then the prisoners without being
emit liens were privileged persons, above the II
My of the State which they set at defiance.
aw At this polntthe hour for the adiournm
of the court arrived, and further argum
OF was postponed until today,
: !. --> s->--
ed; MIR. Hammond Wanted.
hat TOPEKA, Kan, Oct 2S.-A requisition
IN the Governor OF Illinois was issued Thu
my day by Governor Martin, of Kansas, for